Well Intel has gone for the save power approach rather than speed.

I don't really care because I will be buying an Intel laptop in the near future.

More like save battery for me.

Intel!!!

I would always take an AMD chip over an Intel.

1) For the same money you get an extermely better chip from AMD.

2) AMD have better technology, all 64 bit processors run 32 and 64 bit instructions and DONT have an emulation layer (like Itanium has).

3) Intels "Dual Core" processors are 2 32 bit cores on a die, AMDs "Dual Core" is 2 64 bit processors.

4) AMD were the first with 64 bit and the die is an extention of the 32 bit technology. Intel uses 2 32 bit processors to make 1 64 bit processor.

5) AMD chips can be overclocked to a higher amount (they rate their chips on the middle of the processors speed capability, Intel rate it on the max).

6) AS an Elec. Engineer who has friends in Intel Ireland, I prefer AMD (for numerous reasons I cannot mention)

Sonu - Intel and AMD are atually on par for Power consumption in most cases according to the statistics. (only when the full processor is used does the AMD chip take slightly more power). BUT AMD chips have a new function in them that the processor shuts parts of itself off when they are not required (like idle time). As the processor is required it activates itself in sections, and when they are no longer required they are shut down. By doing this the AMD processors should use less power during normal use (as you rarely use all your procesors capability. Look at the percentage usage in device manager in windows. Most of the time the processor is idle.)

Edited November 8, 200520 yr by phkninja

AMD Athlon

just a tip WebMadman, Dont post in topics that are well and truly dead n buried.

Welcome back from the dead

I would have to say AMD all the way..Well in the Dual Core market anyway. If you look at the Benchmarks for the X2's (4000 models) and the benchmarks for the Pentium Extream editon exept for 1 maybe 2 benchmarks AMD out performs the pentium extreame edition by a lot.

AMD here

i prefer amd, i worked with a P4 not to long ago (p4 3ghz, ati radeon 9800 pro) and my amd (1800+, 9200 pro) outperformed it. the menu transitions (fade effect on both machines) on mine surpassed them. when id click on a menu, it would stutter. games ran terribly too (i even loaded the machine and loaded all the right drivers than came with everything, i built both machines btw)

thats just my "realworld" experience though. i prefer the amd cpus in all honesty. i have a pII in my laptop, but thats just a laptop.

Man I can't believe you guys are posting on a thread from 2003, it's over 3yrs old now...

Despite, before you jump onto your AMD bandwagon, I think you better take a closer look at the Intel Core Duo 2 which is cheaper and faster than AMD's best chips.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/cpu/in...e-2-13-ghz.html

i been using amd for 3 years now, im not changing.

Edited July 14, 200620 yr by Cygnus

hmmm i recently bought an AMD Opteron dual core ... but i am almost sorry i did, as intel has released its Core 2 Duo chips, witch cost less, use less engergy (max 95wat instead of 110wat) and seam to be faster,

but hey thats life at the time i desided to buy it (3 months ago, i didn't know yet that intell's core2 duo would be so cheap, so i just bought the best G*-d*mn cpu my budget could buy...

the only thing left for me, now is buying extra cooler, and get some extra speed by overclocking to make up for my loss...

Intel all the way, you all aware that intel manufacts AMD via contracts, so basiclly "AMD - Intel in inside", other companys manufact AMD as well.

Someone plz just let this topic die, Its OLD and should never have been brought back to life in the first place.

Maybe a admin should lock it.